🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <11106@uwm.edu>, wlee@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Wan Ngai Wayne Lee) writes:
> >    I may be totally wrong in this but aren't FORTH and LISP close relatives?
> 
> The two languages have many similar properties.  But they were designed for
> different purposes and their foundations are different.  Postscript is much
> closer to Forth.
> 
Charles Moore, the designer of FORTH did incorporate a bit of Lisp-isms
in FORTH, notably extension to the base langauge.

> >It seems to me that FORTH was the foundation of LISP. Now as I said before
> >I may be remembering wrong or have the wrong "child" of FORTH in mind, or I
> >may just be remembering a LISP that was developed from FORTH as an exercise
> >by some one I knew or read about. Is there anyone out there that can set me
> >straight or re-enforce this??
> 
> Forth was born later than LISP.  I don't think the designer of LISP knew
> anything about Forth when he designed LISP.  Because of the simplicity of
> Forth, many people had developed variants of Forth, such as Fifth, Sixth,
> ... .  I don't know any LISP written in Forth.  But I do know there
> is Prolog written in Forth.
> 

As a FORTH interest group ( FIG ) leader who shared sessions with a LISP group
in the original Chacago Area Computer Hobbyist Exchange ( C.A.C.H.E. )
along with Ward Christenson ( XMODEM fame ), our group did a Lisp in FORTH
called FLISP. It was my first stab at RT AI and man was it something.
I won't say what but for being in 1980-81 it was *early*.

Another thing FORTH and LISP share is simple internals that
provide hugely poweful externals, or usage.

Today's need are better suited to FORTH and the AI chips.
See my recent post...

Clyde